Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > If they are "upward compatible" changes that don't break anything, I
> > have no objection to trying them out in the main style for the xml
> > site. Just remember that every single feature that is added can also be
> > just another thing that has to be learned by a new user. Docbook is
> > *immensely* complicated, even though I'm sure that *every single new
> > feature* seemed
> > like a Good Idea at the time.
>
> Right. This is why I removed the HTML4-like table and used a much
> simpler one (but still a little more powerful than yours).
We picked the HTML4 style of tables, because it did the job (mostly),
and there was no learning curve (everybody already knows how to use
them). There seemed to be no new semantic distinction that we were
trying to make, so no need to change the tag names.
This will be an interesting area to discuss...what semantics are missing
from the HTML style table? (I'm less interested in name changes).
> > It can be done in an upward compatible way, so it
> > doesn't cause any massive rewrites or updates, and it fixes some
> > weaknesses in the grammar. Let's give it a try, and get some custome
> > feedback on it!
>
> Please, the word "customer" doesn't have a meaning in the open source
> world. We deal with "developers" and "users". that's it :) this is our
> slang.
Heh-heh...I'm going to be a bit subversive here, and try to get you to
see these mere "users" of the "developer"'s technology in a bit
different light... A bit of merging of the two worlds... There may be
some value here in doing so, so I'll try to use the word "users", if you
try to think of them as "customers"... ;-) ;-)
> Anyway, Pier and I will try to propose little painless changes to
> converge...
That's cool with me!
Mike